ok, imagine being in court watching a tape. theres two men standing together, one looks particularly agressive towards the other one, the other one seems to be backing off/avoiding the other person. The other person will not stop, suddenly the person being harrased hits the other person in the face, knocking them on the ground, he then runs.

Would you find him guilty? I wouldnt. However if both were agressive looking towards eachother then one randomly sucker punches the other then stands there gloating then thats when you would be found guilty, otherwise its pretty easy to tell it was in sd.

_________________________
"They say the only way to kill a lion is with a rear naked choke, but I'd just kick it in the head"

Everything has it's time and place, even violence.if my "personal space" is invaded in a thretning manner I will strike first decicivly and quickly. before that, I will use every tool at my disposal to avoid a fight.

According to this, there is a definite set of behaviours and indicators which can generally be taken as a protocol for the indication of impending violence against you. If the stages and indicators are present in the altercation, this forms a foundation upon which to build a self-defense claim regarding a pre-emptive strike.

Trying to claim self defense without being well informed about criminal mindset and indicators of violence is a pointless activity. Furthermore, I believe that people should read this article so that if they end up in a self defensive situation, they can confidently use a pre-emptive strike if the situation requires it. Knowledge is power.

A good way to assess and acknowledge your self defensive tactics in relation to the five stages of violence is to follow the pyramid of personal safety (http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/pyramid.html). My personal defensive layer strategy goes further by adding more layers to the pyramid, acknowledging that pre-emptive strikes are a separate layer from the rest of physical self defense:

It still comes down to whether or not a magistrate or jury actually believe you. As (I think it was McSenesei said) testifying things like 'shoulders dipped, they became monosyllabic, their eyes narrowed, their breathing rate altered and their skin tone changed, would be like telling them (the jury or magistrate) that you had read it in your horoscope.

Anyway, I still hold the same views as I always have, so nothing has changed as far as I am concerned.

I look at it like this; the law is secondary to my well being. Survive first. If you survive then you can worry about consequence. If you dont survive, none of it matters.

You can tell when you have an aggressive opponent. Observation is a huge part of self defense. If you find yourself in a bad situation your awareness has already failed you. Dont let it fail you again because of fear from repercussion. Use it to read your opponents body language and you will know if he plans to attack. Hit them first, fast, and hard and get out quickly. Would I recommend trying to grab and control straight off the bat? No. After a strike or feint, sure.

_________________________
"When I let Go of who I am, I become who I might be." Lao Tzu

It still comes down to whether or not a magistrate or jury actually believe you. As (I think it was McSenesei said) testifying things like 'shoulders dipped, they became monosyllabic, their eyes narrowed, their breathing rate altered and their skin tone changed, would be like telling them (the jury or magistrate) that you had read it in your horoscope.

Anyway, I still hold the same views as I always have, so nothing has changed as far as I am concerned.

MC.

The patterns described don't just happen by accident and I would say that individually, they are not good indicators but in combination, they form a good indicator as to when an attack may happen. Body language is a very important facet of everyday life, as anyone versed in psychology, NLP or conflict resolution will tell you. This is far from being "horoscope-like", it is a science which has a basis in our evolutionary and social history. Even if you don't strike pre-emptively, acknowledging this may help to save your life in the long run.

Specialists can be brought into court to testify on this issue. It objectifies the claim of self defense, rather than leaving it subjective.

Naturally, I did not expect you to change your principles. However, you must admit that if a pre-emptive strike did occur, this information forms the best argument that it occurred in self defense and may turn a jury or magistrate to the side of accepting the self defense claim. Outside of the circumstances described, a strike is not pre-emptive but must be considered to be assault.

What do criminals do after having committed a crime? They leave the scene as fast as they can, don't they?

You want to MAKE yourself look guilty? Leave the scene as you have described and every juror in the damn world will construe that action as an admission of guilt. The police will be well brassed off because they now have to find you, and lets be honest they only arrest the guy lying on the floor in exceptional circumstances, after all the loser in a fight isn't the one who was most aggressive.

I'll throw my hat into the ring with the police on this, they deal with this type of situation day in, day out and tend to know what they are doing. I uphold the law as best I can as a civilian. I suggest you may benefit from following suite.

Expert witnesses or not, believe me a jury will normally make up its mind AS THE CHARGES ARE READ. Now I know that takes a lot of believing but it is true. Some of the reasons are these.

1) They think: well the police/CPS wouldn't bring it to court if 'they' didn't think the accused was guilty.

2) The police/CPS are much more experienced than we are.

3) The accused ran off after the event, which tends to indicate guilt.

4) The accused did nothing to render any assistance to the injured party.

5) The accused didn't inform the police that they had done damage to the guy on the deck or stay to justify why they acted as they did.

6) As No5, but didn't phone for an ambulance for the injured party.

7) We are told that all these so called indicators took place, but there is no proof of such things happening on the video evidence, or in witness statements or testimony.

8) The arresting officers had to establish the accused's identity and then find their place of abode, further indicating guilt.

9) In the face of all these questions raised the accused denied the charges.

10) The accused's 'body language' in the dock seems to be highly suspect.

Juries are not alone in the manner they form conclusions. Can you remember the last time you went for a job interview? Well the person interviewing you made up their mind about you within the first ten/fifteen seconds of you walking into the room. The rest of the interview (how ever long it took) was spent with the interviewer looking for reinforcement of their initial impression. It wasn't spent with them looking for reasons for them to change their minds.

A question out of idle curiosity and one which I have as yet to get a satisfactory answer, and I've asked it many times to many people. You might just be the one who is able to satisfy my curiosity.

Q/ If we are watching them for body language clues, what is there to suppose that 'they' are not watching us for the same cues? After all, as has been stated in some of the attachments to Leo's excellent posts, the accumulation of these clues is natural to any predator and cannot be disguised. If we are planning a pre-emprive strike we ourselves are just as predatory, if not more so than our opponent so the clues will be there for them to spot also.